Skip to content

Dockerfile: bump ghcr.io/google/addlicense:v1.1.1#61

Closed
thaJeztah wants to merge 1 commit intodocker:mainfrom
thaJeztah:bump_addlicense
Closed

Dockerfile: bump ghcr.io/google/addlicense:v1.1.1#61
thaJeztah wants to merge 1 commit intodocker:mainfrom
thaJeztah:bump_addlicense

Conversation

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Was hoping this would be a multi-platform image, but it's still single-arch;

 1 warning found (use docker --debug to expand):
 - InvalidBaseImagePlatform: Base image ghcr.io/google/addlicense:v1.0.0 was pulled with platform "linux/amd64", expected "linux/arm64" for current build (line 25)

Was hoping this would be a multi-platform image, but it's still
single-arch;

     1 warning found (use docker --debug to expand):
     - InvalidBaseImagePlatform: Base image ghcr.io/google/addlicense:v1.0.0 was pulled with platform "linux/amd64", expected "linux/arm64" for current build (line 25)

Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <[email protected]>
@thaJeztah thaJeztah requested a review from crazy-max December 13, 2024 14:13
@thaJeztah thaJeztah self-assigned this Dec 13, 2024
@thaJeztah
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I guess alternatively, we could just do a go install instead

@codecov-commenter
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.73%. Comparing base (a33364e) to head (a362e87).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #61   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.73%   67.73%           
=======================================
  Files           5        5           
  Lines         623      623           
=======================================
  Hits          422      422           
  Misses        139      139           
  Partials       62       62           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@crazy-max
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I guess alternatively, we could just do a go install instead

Yeah maybe go install would be better for this tool.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants